It does not need much to believe that the party activists would have been on the rampage. Cars and buses would have been torched. Thousands of people would have been out on the streets. In one word: chaos. More martyrs would have been created as jumpy police and paramilitaries would have fired live bullets to quell the situation, making things worse. Shopkeepers would keep the shutters down for several days. No one would have ventured to go to factories or offices. A perfect hartal. As the political temperature rose, the government would have become increasingly frantic. How to react? The opposition would be effectively rudderless and out of control. Any "leaders" lucky to escape the grenades would not have the stature to command the party workers. A national emergency would have been declared and there would have been no option but for a reluctant military to come in and douse the flames.

But then what?

The BNP alliance would not have been able to withstand the pressure and the alliance would have shattered. Legitimacy would have disappeared and things would not somehow "return to normal." It is difficult to envisage the present regime being able to stay in power.

How have we reached this juncture? A government elected with a two-thirds majority and 46 per cent of the vote less than three years ago, shunted out of power.

The fevered speculation gripping our middle class is all about who and how? One day, one newspaper writes that grenades were lobbed from the roof of a high building. The next day we hear that they might have been thrown by infiltrators standing a few feet away from the trucks. If the previous investigations are anything to go by, we will never know the full story.

What happened to the flood?
This is all put in perspective when we realise that the bombing occurred just as the flood waters receded from Dhaka. Besides photo-ops of a VIP distributing bags of "relief goods," the flood has now dropped down the political agenda. It might as well not have happened.

For the millions trying to recover their lives, trying to get the Aman crop cultivated, trying to rebuild their homes, it's about how they can make it through the winter and then through the lean season to April when the winter crop is harvested.

It's difficult to grasp statistics that talk about up to 10 million people losing all their assets, and another 20 million being affected one way or another. Whatever the actual number, it was and remains a disaster.

The economic impact has been roughly estimated to run in the billions by some agencies. Even if it were only $500 million, that itself would be serious. Politics here, unfortunately, does not run on the needs of the majority so the flood and re-construction is not much of an "issue."

Back to normal service?
The game in town now is about jostling for the inevitable change. A de-stabilisation campaign seems to be in motion to bring about a radical shift in power. Bangladesh without the Awami League is like India without the Congress Party. It would seem that both the BNP and Awami League are facing their greatest crisis where their existence as the "natural" parties of power is in question. New rules are being written.

Tin-pot movements are sprouting up and negotiations are taking place for "the future." That is, the future for individual personalities. No one is seriously talking about the future of the people or the country. They may mutter about a "failed state" but the mainstream debate stops at: "we must get rid of terrorists and corruption." How would they do that? They never spell out the details. They are looking for a magic wand.

That will not come from some handover. Even if a "national government" were to come into power with a sprinkling of prominent figures, that would still beg the question: how would the historic and structural problems of this country be solved?

There would be an initial honeymoon of twelve months. With the departing politicians would go their allied terrorists and extortionists. As we saw in Operation Cleanheart, there would be massive improvement in law and order in the cities. There would be a collective sigh of relief. If the new regime were to have the right faces in place, there would be a kind of legitimacy in the minds of the all-important media, and, therefore, middle class.

All good so far.

By the middle of the second year, things would not look so rosy. The garments industry would be losing between 200,000 to half a million jobs as the smaller factories close down. The real estate and financial sectors, which have grown on the back of this sector, would be feeling the pinch. Even a 15 per cent contraction would be significant to shops and the rural-urban economy. Add on top the forced closure of state owned enterprises. Add the growing frustrations of the young, educated, would-be professionals, clutching worthless certificates. And you get to see a serious unemployment problem in the city. One doubts that the food price racket can be tackled. If the urban consumer sees no reduction in prices of food and essentials, you can see where this can lead in 3 to 4 years. Whatever the mix, the longevity of any new regime will be in doubt.

It is conceivable that several major business contracts would be signed within this period in the energy, transportation, and banking sectors.

With the right deal, in the correct way, they could be a boom to parts of the economy as a quasi-Thailand style development. However, the chances of getting it right are remote. Assets would be signed away cheaply as our "negotiators" do not have the skill, experience, or willingness to strike a bargain, reasonable for both sides.

Finally we might consider two things:

One: people did not pour onto the streets in support of the Awami League. People were shocked and scared. Though they condemned the deaths and maiming on August 21, they did it in the privacy of their homes and felt no need to show their support for the party. That is a reflection of their disgust with the current state of politics and hartals.

Two: no alliance, movement, or group has come up with a convincing vision of how they are going to take this country forward

As regards new alliances, the alternative may be clear in the sense that we may get to understand who and which groups are likely to take advantage. However, unless they can lead and provide hope to the 140 million, not just the 5 to 10 million middle class, then they will get into lasting trouble.

Today, we can pretend there are parties, government and opposition. It makes good political theatre. Instead, in the future, we may see a harsher landscape of secular forces ranged against religious forces, or our own version of a Nepal situation with an ungovernable countryside and power limited to the main cities and towns. Impossible?

Contrived or not, who could predict that 5,000 armed militia would be riding in motorbikes into a city, under police protection disregarding direct orders from the Prime Minister, following a curiously named "Bangla Bhai" and fighting a guerilla style war against communists?

We are now wondering where this will go next. Perhaps our equivalent of a Twin Towers? We have already seen threats against our airports and planes. A spectacular event? Something so terrible that it would force a regime change?

2004 should teach us one thing. Be prepared to believe that anything can happen, because it probably will.

Farid Bakht is a freelance contributor to The Daily Star.